In September 2013, the Seattle Times ran a glossy series called “Sea Change”, which claimed that ocean acidification caused the deaths of untold numbers of local oysters in factory nurseries. There were serious technical problems with the article, including the fact that the oyster deaths were of a non-native species in industrial nurseries and that the problem was not really the small amount of acidification by increasing CO2, but rather the mistaken ingestion of less basic upwelled water (as noted by many sources, including leading NOAA scientists). Furthermore, several of the oyster farms were spraying herbicides and pesticides over state waters and greatly disturbing fragile coastal areas (issues that came out in 2015 in story by the Seattle Times Danny Westneat).

Anyway, I did several blogs about the subject because I felt that the public should know that there were important errors in the Seattle Times article.

A week or two after my second blog on the topic I got a call from my chair. Dean Lisa Graumlich was “concerned” about my blog and wanted the department chair to talk to me about it. It was also pointed out that the College was receiving a large amount of State funds for a UW acidification center and that the Governor had been hailing the dying oysters as evidence of the grave impact of increasing CO2. In short, a false narrative was supporting the Governor’s claims and providing millions of dollars to the college. The clear message: I should lay off.

So I was being called on to the carpet by the UW Dean for material in my non-UW blog.

The history of politicized suppression of science goes back to the roots of my college. Back in 2005-2006, a few local politicians (such as then Mayor Greg Nickels) and some UW climate impacts folks were claiming that the Cascade snowpack was rapidly disappearing (50% loss!) and the anthropogenic global warming was the cause. A UW researcher and previous Washington State Climatologist Mark Albright analyzed the snowpack information and found little decline, and he mentioned this fact on a few local electronic mailing lists.

The State Climatologist at that time (Phil Mote) and member of the Climate Impacts Group (now a part of the College) was an author of a paper claiming draconian snowpack loss and warned Mark Albright to refrain from communicating his analysis to others. When Mark rightfully refused, Mote fired Mark Albright as Associate Climatologist. This action hit the media, went viral, reaching local newspapers and even got covered by CNN. A very serious breach of the academic freedom.

When I objected to Mr. Albright’s firing and the exaggeration of the snowpack loss, I was told that although I might be scientifically correct, I would be helping “climate deniers” if I gave the correct information. I needed to stand with those pushing excessive numbers, to get people to do the “right thing.” Even for the wrong reason. According to some of my colleagues, the ends justify unethical and untruthful means. I just couldn’t go there.

During the past ten years, there has been calls by some faculty and even a COENV administrator to have Mr. Albright “retired” or to have his ability to communicate on electronic email lists restrained. Some called him all kinds of unfortunate names ("denier", skeptic, etc.).

I should note that he, I and Dr. Mark Stoelinga wrote a paper describing only modest loss in Northwest snowpack, a paper that was accepted in a leading peer-reviewed journal. The snowpack loss today? Check the figure showing the Northwest snowpack since the early 1980s; nearly unchanged. Mark Albright was right.

Should we place more trust in measurements produced by gauges or satellites

Gauges. Definitely gauges.

Why? You got any data to back that up?

Yes. 1000 to 0.000000. Distance, in nautical miles, between a typical polar orbiter and what it is trying to measure and the distance in nautical miles between a gauge and what it is trying to measure. Duh.

You can't just stare at what's right in front of you! Gotta pull back and look at the big picture!

Also, satellites are spread out across a somewhat rider range than 1150 miles (I'm assuming your example of 1000 nautical miles was indicative of orbital altitude?), from 112 to 22,000 miles. Hubble itself is low earth orbit, almost 1/3 of your suggested orbital altitude, and look what it can do! You have not convinced me yet TH

Polar orbits are not super-stable and require pretty regular station checks, if I recall. And such updates would insert and perpetuate bias into the data, yes? Also, gravitational anomalies in the Earth's crust and mantle screw up altitude consistency, particularly in LEOs.

In any event, I've often wondered if the conversion of ice from polar regions into water at the equatorial bulge via centrifuge ought to read as a rotational slowing--as the planet conserves more and more angular momentum. In which case, it should be measurable.

In either of the above, the question of human influence remains unanswered.

Should we place more trust in measurements produced by gauges or satellites

Gauges. Definitely gauges.

Why? You got any data to back that up?

Yes. 1000 to 0.000000. Distance, in nautical miles, between a typical polar orbiter and what it is trying to measure and the distance in nautical miles between a gauge and what it is trying to measure. Duh.

How specifically does this affect the accuracy of the measurements? GPS navigation is satellite based and we use it with good results. And those satellites are in geostationary orbits at an altitude of 22,000+ miles.

Your statement seems like that of a layman without actual understanding of what is being measured and how.

Polar orbits are not super-stable and require pretty regular station checks, if I recall. And such updates would insert and perpetuate bias into the data, yes? Also, gravitational anomalies in the Earth's crust and mantle screw up altitude consistency, particularly in LEOs.

GPS navigation is satellite based and we use it with good results. And those satellites are in geostationary orbits at an altitude of 22,000+ miles.

Your statement seems like that of a layman without actual understanding of what is being measured and how.

Randy, GPS satellites are in a middle orbit--about 12,000 miles up. If they were in a geosync orbit, they would remain (more or less) stationary on your handheld. Also, remember that the data a device reader sees is usually corrected by WAAS ground stations.

GPS navigation is satellite based and we use it with good results. And those satellites are in geostationary orbits at an altitude of 22,000+ miles.

Your statement seems like that of a layman without actual understanding of what is being measured and how.

Randy, GPS satellites are in a middle orbit--about 12,000 miles up. If they were in a geosync orbit, they would remain (more or less) stationary on your handheld. Also, remember that the data a device reader sees is usually corrected by WAAS ground stations.

OK so the GPS satellites are at 12,000 miles and in motion and provide accurate ground position measurements.

Wasn't my argument, I was just explaining GPS. Still, I doubt either method is reliable--terrestrial gauges because of plate tectonics, subsidence, rebound, erosion, etc., etc.; satellite measurement, as above, because it still relies on contaminated ground-based inputs.

Again, trying to think of a clean measure--and timing the planet's rotation as it imparts or bestows angular momentum, vis-a-vis mass migrating from pole to equator, is the only method that I can imagine. There are probably problems with this idea too, I'm sure.

Why is that obvious ? If it's so obvious it should be easy to state the precise way in which the terrestrial measurements have superior accuracy -- but you seem to be having are hard time saying anything beyond "it's obvious".

Tide gauges measure relative mean sea level, which is the only metric that really matters to local planners. If sea level is rising 10mm/year because your locality is sinking, or dropping the same amount because your coast is rising, that is reflected in tide gauge data. Nobody really has to worry about sea level rise except to the extent that it affects the locality in question.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou cannot attach files in this forumYou can download files in this forum

Disclosure: As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases when you use our link(s).